You have an odd view of society, at least from a European point of view.
- not all of Europe. I rather like Switzerland and its take on things.
In Europe certain things are considered human rights, such as the right to life and to shelter and to water.
- please, define what you mean by 'human rights'?
If the human right in this case means that government cannot prevent an individual from attempting to build himself a better life, attempting to survive by building/acquiring shelter/water, that is one thing.
If by 'human right' you mean government using force and violence to take resources from some people in order to provide entitlements to items, that you think are 'rights' (food/shelter/water), then it's something else entirely.
A right is a protection against government abuse, nothing else, everything else is government abuse. An entitlement system is a system of government abuse and destruction of human rights. Also it doesn't work at all once you run out of people that you can abuse, look at Greece. Who will provide the Greeks with those entitlements if there is nobody left to steal from?
Therefore the water company can't turn your water off, ever.
- nonsense. A water company can shut down and not provide you with water. It can move the water pumps and cleaning facilities out of there and all of a sudden your entitlements are gone. Simpler still, a water company can shut down because it cannot pay energy bills because the people feel they have a 'right' to get water and it cannot be shut off 'ever' even if they stop paying the water bills to the water company.
The only way to maintain such a system of entitlements is to have government enforced monopoly on supply and then ration the supply based on the so called 'rights'. Of-course as all such schemes, this too ends the moment financial troubles start and they start eventually in a system like that, where there are no individual rights, there are plenty of people that feel entitled to be supplied stuff by others and there is a government that enforces this view with the rule of violence.
Similarly, the gas and electricity companies can't turn your supply off in the hope that the freezing weather and the fact that your kids can't do their homework in the dark is sufficient motivation to make you pay up, they have to supply that service while taking other legal action.
- and it is absolutely wrong to destroy individual rights of people (companies are ran by people, so that just we are clear) to turn off the lights this way, they are not property of the state and they are not your private slaves either. Of-course again, in a system like that this collapses eventually and inevitably, the only question is time.
Of-course natural monopolies are a myth, a way for governments to establish monopolies and destroy competition by destroying individual rights of people.
There is no loss of rights for the corporation, because they have none. They are not people, human rights don't apply.
- a corporation is a fiction, every business is ran by people, you are talking about destroying individual rights of people that run companies, don't pretend you don't understand it.
Again, it isn't that dissimilar to the US, where a business cannot refuse to serve people because of their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.
- yeah, and people should be able to refuse to serve anybody they want for any reason they want.
A person can walk into any business he desires, thus discriminating against all other businesses, no questions asked. Same for people that run businesses, they should be able to discriminate against anybody who wants to use/buy their services. USA is wrong as well, but multiple wrongs don't make a right.
A right is a protection against government abuse, nothing else. A 'right to private property' means not being abused by governments, not having your property taken from you. Your property starts with your own body.
Rephrase your comment: "I am not sure why you feel you have the right to your body".
Your private property is merely extension of your time on this planet, extension of your living self. If the society does not accept that people must have the right to own and operate property without government interference, then it is logical (and historically valid) to see people as property of the state.
People were property of the state in the former USSR, people are property of the state in North Korea and many other places, where there are no private property rights.
Wrong. Like somebody loses their right not to have to subsidise others with their own lives, loses their right not to have their private property stolen from them so government can buy votes by paying off those, who benefit financially by not having to pay for their own use. Water is not an entitlement either, there is no entitlement that water has to be cleaned and provided to you by anybody and there should never be anything like that. You have the right to go drink out of a lake or a river, but you dont have an entitlement to force somebody to clean it for you and give it to you. Again, government shouldn't be in any business, water or Internet, stealing property and destroying individual rights, providing entitlements, stealing votes by purchasing them with stolen resources.
As to what you see in 'AFAIC', each one of us sees what he is personallg concerned about, so I see what your concerns and thoughts are. Get some help.
A list of entitlements, not rights. If somebody has to provide you with a supply of anything in any shape, way or form, then those are entitlements and entitlements destroy right, not provide them. Somebody has to lose his or her right not to supply you with an entitlement, for you to have that entitlement. You don't want people like Italy (or anybody), enforcing their ideas of entitlements. Let them figure out their labour entitlement system, how is that working out therr (Italy, Spain, or anywherr for that matter, where people cannot be fired because of 'rights', and what that does to freedom and eventually business and hiring).
Oh, Irony. You are self defined as a serf the moment you vote or stand in any way on the side of having income of anybody being taxed for any reason whatsoever.
Oh my, there is no such thing as 'fair share' of taxes, there is no such thing, it's a gigantic cop out justification to steal from people. Nobody should be paying a single penny in any income related taxes, less of all businesses. Businesses shouldn't be paying any taxes whatsoever. There is no such fucking thing as 'fair' when we are talking about stealing money from people. I swear to all the gods I don't believe in, this world stinks because there are people like you living in it.
Correct, which is why I don't live in any of them. Multiple flag method, banking separate from business, separate from residence, separate from income, separate from vacations and so on. There are a number of places where I feel more comfortable, but basically I always look at the place I am at specifically from that point of view: how much freedom does it want to steal from me? Some places are much worse than others, different places concentrate on stealing different types of freedoms.
Well it's the problem, isn't it? The fact is that yes, the government took over and usurped all the various powers that it is not actually authorised to have and it 'has a role' in all of that, as in it has fingers in all of it, actually more likely like hands, it's swimming in all of it.
It shouldn't, that's my point, there shouldn't be any government involvement in our private lives at all, there shouldn't be any government involvement in anything beyond the very basic protection against invasion and that's it.
Federal government shouldn't have any authority to build any highways, it also shouldn't have authority to establish post offices that are monopolies at the very least (so are highways).
There shouldn't be any government involvement in electrification or telephones either, health, insurance, transportation, energy of any kind, education, pretty much anything.
Yes, I am sure that UPS and FedEx will defend my privacy with their lives. Are you aware of a competitor who is unlikely to provide my data to the government?
- they are not a government agency by default and they have to provide their clients with service that clients will appreciate, which means in many cases yes, defending your privacy sometimes with their freedom.
What would be the point of doing this? To get better mail rates as long as you live in one of the top-10 major cities?
- precisely. If you live on a farm somewhere you are not entitled to have your services subsidised by people who live in the cities. You shouldn't be subsidised regardless where you live, regardless for what the reasons are, regardless of who you are.
The first class mail delivery has to be opened to the competition, the USPS has a monopoly on it, if you don't want to be tracked you may want to choose a competitor who will not provide your data to the government that way. Of-course USPS is government, so this story is a bit strange. The government postal service is tracking your mail... you better hope it does, otherwise how can it deliver it?
and as an added benefit at the push of a button you won't be able to see what is actually going on on the outside, probably the airplane company is selling this to the government as we speak, pushing it as a 'security' feature (by obscurity) as if people who really want to couldn't use timing to figure out where they are.
Why don't the churches let physicists, geneticists and other scientists read lectures in churches instead of their Sunday/Saturday/whatever day sermons?
I see what you did here. The time-traveling is just too dangerous. Better that you devote yourself to study the other great mystery of the universe: women!
You should apologise, not to me, I have nothing to do with your education system, apologise to the people in your own country for destroying a perfectly fine free market capitalist system that they had in the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth and destroying it with socialist and of course fascist movements that your pathetic society has developed over the last 100 years. It happened to your society in a completely organic fashion, you didn't even need a revolution.
Poor people are poor in your socialist/fascist system and they will stay poor and will get poorer. Poor people were made richer by a free market capitalist system that you decided to destroy in exchange for a promise of security and free bread crumbs and pieces of pork and circuses, that politicians promised to throw your way. Of-course they promised to steal from those, who still produce and to subsidise those, that you are supposedly interested in helping, but of course as per usual, these motions lead to the exact opposite outcomes.
Your freedom to move... on the property of others.
- wrong. I was born in the USSR, I am talking about freedom to move without government impeding on it, which is what we had - government impeding on our ability to move as free people, which we were not.
As to property of others, I am against all public property and so AFAIC all roads should be private and it is between individuals to come and various road providers to come to agreement as to how the roads can be used and it has nothing to do with:
to be secured for you by others (yet without cost)
which only has meaning by dint of the power of the collective to enforce the contract.
- wrong. Freedom to contract means without government interjecting into the terms of contract and setting rules as to how contracts are written and enforced.
you were free to own yourself and your property... unless I understand you to be objecting to eminent domain
sure, eminent domain is a huge problem, but you are still wrong, people are not free to own themselves and property as long as governments can collect income taxes and declare what money is and inflate money supply by printing fiat.
roads, railroads, etc. that the nasty collective forced upon your noble and downtrodden individuals.
- all roads and railroads should be private, as they used to be as well.
Kooks here are the likes of you, not just kooks, socialist/fascist ideologues.
Nonsense, a free society is free from government oppression, which creates the instability in the economy, the inflation (money printing) that keeps politicians afloat, the business regulations and income taxes that destroy productivity and promote theft and murder (and obviously higher prices).
Free market capitalism produces outcomes that are affordable by most productive people and push prices down specifically to gain more market share and to make more money in the process, which is the ultimate moral good: making money by giving the people the choice of giving you their money for the product that they want and reward you for.
The only entities that keep pushing prices up are the governments, who want to bail out the politicians by constantly pushing for more and more inflation (money printing) to give them the free out of jail card to promise shit to the masses of idiots, who want free shit that they do not personally produce and pay for (at least not directly as they understand it).
Your double speak is powerless to hide the reality, there are no rights that are only ensured by denying rights of other people and that is exactly what you have to do to provide your 'civil entitlements', not rights.
A civil entitlement system exists, unfortunately, you are correct. A civil right system does not exist, anything that has to call itself a 'civil right' is based on discrimination, theft and use of force of government and its weapons to steal rights/liberty/property of people to provide the entitlements. The societies that create such is systems are sick, I give you that, most societies are sick. Societies that are based on denial of rights, denial of equal rights of people under law, based on theft and threat of government violence are sick societies.
We have what we have, all we can do is understand what exactly is going on and help these societies to commit suicide, a collapse, which is inevitable and desirable. I would rather have war and destruction than these so called 'civilised societies' that destroy the individual by promising to the majority to steal and redistribute. These societies do not deserve the light of day and they will collapse under that weight and total lack of morality, the morality that matters - morality of respect of the freedom of the individual being more important than any group any collective. Freedom first of all means protection of the individual against the destructive power of the collective, freedom to own and operate his/her own self and his/her property, freedom of movement and freedom of contract.
Sick, paternalistic societies will end themselves so that eventually freer societies can emerge, too bad we are living here today before that happened.
Wrong, poor people could afford education out of pocket, people could work for a summer to pay for the education that they could actually use in the real world. A wealthy society allows parents to pay for their children's education out of pocket specifically because it is a wealthy, productive (producing) society. You are a troglodyte, stuck in a box with no lights that can't even imagine that beyond the box there is an actual world.
The whackjob here is you, insisting that some people have to be enslaved by the system to provide some other people with a good and a service just because you want to call that particular good/service a 'right'. A right cannot be given, a right is protection against government abuse, it is absence of government abuse and equality under law. People cannot be equal under law if they are forced to provide a good/service to anybody under the guise of 'right'. At best you are confused and cannot see the difference between a right and an entitlement, at worst you are a blood thirsty socialist/fascist monster that will justify any violation of freedom and life as long as it aligns with your ideology of theft and dictatorship.
Correct. Fix the public schools by shutting them the fuck down, stopping the theft of money from the people that they could otherwise channel their resources to where the market needs those resources to go at the time, so it wouldn't be a situation where some stupendous central authority needs to wake up to the realities of the market but instead people would be solving their own problems and offering those solutions at competitive prices. Education systems are not supposed to be something static, they have to change with times to provide the economy / society what it needs and individuals within the economy acting out of their own self interest try to figure out what are the best products / services that the rest of the market participants would prefer at any time and the competition (the invisible hand) creates the necessary pressure and pushes people in the direction that helps others rather than impeding them.
Please tell me what the fuck is wrong with you? A guy works in a company in India, he is making a market set wage there, obviously he is not forced to work in the company, he is making the best money he can in his country in that company, otherwise he'd be working somewhere else in his country.
He comes to the USA to do some installation work of the product that was developed by his team in his country. How is this at all a sane idea that he now needs to be paid something entirely different based on the country where he is doing installation rather than what his actual salary is back in the country where he was hired and where he has his actual job?
Slashdot Mirror
You have an odd view of society, at least from a European point of view.
- not all of Europe. I rather like Switzerland and its take on things.
In Europe certain things are considered human rights, such as the right to life and to shelter and to water.
- please, define what you mean by 'human rights'?
If the human right in this case means that government cannot prevent an individual from attempting to build himself a better life, attempting to survive by building/acquiring shelter/water, that is one thing.
If by 'human right' you mean government using force and violence to take resources from some people in order to provide entitlements to items, that you think are 'rights' (food/shelter/water), then it's something else entirely.
A right is a protection against government abuse, nothing else, everything else is government abuse. An entitlement system is a system of government abuse and destruction of human rights. Also it doesn't work at all once you run out of people that you can abuse, look at Greece. Who will provide the Greeks with those entitlements if there is nobody left to steal from?
Therefore the water company can't turn your water off, ever.
- nonsense. A water company can shut down and not provide you with water. It can move the water pumps and cleaning facilities out of there and all of a sudden your entitlements are gone. Simpler still, a water company can shut down because it cannot pay energy bills because the people feel they have a 'right' to get water and it cannot be shut off 'ever' even if they stop paying the water bills to the water company.
The only way to maintain such a system of entitlements is to have government enforced monopoly on supply and then ration the supply based on the so called 'rights'. Of-course as all such schemes, this too ends the moment financial troubles start and they start eventually in a system like that, where there are no individual rights, there are plenty of people that feel entitled to be supplied stuff by others and there is a government that enforces this view with the rule of violence.
Similarly, the gas and electricity companies can't turn your supply off in the hope that the freezing weather and the fact that your kids can't do their homework in the dark is sufficient motivation to make you pay up, they have to supply that service while taking other legal action.
- and it is absolutely wrong to destroy individual rights of people (companies are ran by people, so that just we are clear) to turn off the lights this way, they are not property of the state and they are not your private slaves either. Of-course again, in a system like that this collapses eventually and inevitably, the only question is time.
Of-course natural monopolies are a myth, a way for governments to establish monopolies and destroy competition by destroying individual rights of people.
There is no loss of rights for the corporation, because they have none. They are not people, human rights don't apply.
- a corporation is a fiction, every business is ran by people, you are talking about destroying individual rights of people that run companies, don't pretend you don't understand it.
Again, it isn't that dissimilar to the US, where a business cannot refuse to serve people because of their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.
- yeah, and people should be able to refuse to serve anybody they want for any reason they want.
A person can walk into any business he desires, thus discriminating against all other businesses, no questions asked. Same for people that run businesses, they should be able to discriminate against anybody who wants to use/buy their services. USA is wrong as well, but multiple wrongs don't make a right.
A right is a protection against government abuse, nothing else. A 'right to private property' means not being abused by governments, not having your property taken from you. Your property starts with your own body.
Rephrase your comment: "I am not sure why you feel you have the right to your body".
Your private property is merely extension of your time on this planet, extension of your living self. If the society does not accept that people must have the right to own and operate property without government interference, then it is logical (and historically valid) to see people as property of the state.
People were property of the state in the former USSR, people are property of the state in North Korea and many other places, where there are no private property rights.
Wrong. Like somebody loses their right not to have to subsidise others with their own lives, loses their right not to have their private property stolen from them so government can buy votes by paying off those, who benefit financially by not having to pay for their own use.
Water is not an entitlement either, there is no entitlement that water has to be cleaned and provided to you by anybody and there should never be anything like that. You have the right to go drink out of a lake or a river, but you dont have an entitlement to force somebody to clean it for you and give it to you. Again, government shouldn't be in any business, water or Internet, stealing property and destroying individual rights, providing entitlements, stealing votes by purchasing them with stolen resources.
As to what you see in 'AFAIC', each one of us sees what he is personallg concerned about, so I see what your concerns and thoughts are. Get some help.
A list of entitlements, not rights. If somebody has to provide you with a supply of anything in any shape, way or form, then those are entitlements and entitlements destroy right, not provide them. Somebody has to lose his or her right not to supply you with an entitlement, for you to have that entitlement. You don't want people like Italy (or anybody), enforcing their ideas of entitlements. Let them figure out their labour entitlement system, how is that working out therr (Italy, Spain, or anywherr for that matter, where people cannot be fired because of 'rights', and what that does to freedom and eventually business and hiring).
Italy can shove it AFAIC.
Just install a reader for this chip in the wife and you'll get all of your privacy and security and many other things violated...
Oh, Irony. You are self defined as a serf the moment you vote or stand in any way on the side of having income of anybody being taxed for any reason whatsoever.
Oh my, there is no such thing as 'fair share' of taxes, there is no such thing, it's a gigantic cop out justification to steal from people. Nobody should be paying a single penny in any income related taxes, less of all businesses. Businesses shouldn't be paying any taxes whatsoever. There is no such fucking thing as 'fair' when we are talking about stealing money from people.
I swear to all the gods I don't believe in, this world stinks because there are people like you living in it.
Correct, which is why I don't live in any of them. Multiple flag method, banking separate from business, separate from residence, separate from income, separate from vacations and so on. There are a number of places where I feel more comfortable, but basically I always look at the place I am at specifically from that point of view: how much freedom does it want to steal from me? Some places are much worse than others, different places concentrate on stealing different types of freedoms.
Well it's the problem, isn't it? The fact is that yes, the government took over and usurped all the various powers that it is not actually authorised to have and it 'has a role' in all of that, as in it has fingers in all of it, actually more likely like hands, it's swimming in all of it.
It shouldn't, that's my point, there shouldn't be any government involvement in our private lives at all, there shouldn't be any government involvement in anything beyond the very basic protection against invasion and that's it.
Federal government shouldn't have any authority to build any highways, it also shouldn't have authority to establish post offices that are monopolies at the very least (so are highways).
There shouldn't be any government involvement in electrification or telephones either, health, insurance, transportation, energy of any kind, education, pretty much anything.
Yes, I am sure that UPS and FedEx will defend my privacy with their lives. Are you aware of a competitor who is unlikely to provide my data to the government?
- they are not a government agency by default and they have to provide their clients with service that clients will appreciate, which means in many cases yes, defending your privacy sometimes with their freedom.
What would be the point of doing this? To get better mail rates as long as you live in one of the top-10 major cities?
- precisely. If you live on a farm somewhere you are not entitled to have your services subsidised by people who live in the cities. You shouldn't be subsidised regardless where you live, regardless for what the reasons are, regardless of who you are.
The first class mail delivery has to be opened to the competition, the USPS has a monopoly on it, if you don't want to be tracked you may want to choose a competitor who will not provide your data to the government that way. Of-course USPS is government, so this story is a bit strange. The government postal service is tracking your mail... you better hope it does, otherwise how can it deliver it?
and as an added benefit at the push of a button you won't be able to see what is actually going on on the outside, probably the airplane company is selling this to the government as we speak, pushing it as a 'security' feature (by obscurity) as if people who really want to couldn't use timing to figure out where they are.
Why don't the churches let physicists, geneticists and other scientists read lectures in churches instead of their Sunday/Saturday/whatever day sermons?
Yeah, but shark still looks fake.
That's about as funny as a screen door on a battleship.
I see what you did here. The time-traveling is just too dangerous. Better that you devote yourself to study the other great mystery of the universe: women!
You should apologise, not to me, I have nothing to do with your education system, apologise to the people in your own country for destroying a perfectly fine free market capitalist system that they had in the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth and destroying it with socialist and of course fascist movements that your pathetic society has developed over the last 100 years. It happened to your society in a completely organic fashion, you didn't even need a revolution.
Poor people are poor in your socialist/fascist system and they will stay poor and will get poorer. Poor people were made richer by a free market capitalist system that you decided to destroy in exchange for a promise of security and free bread crumbs and pieces of pork and circuses, that politicians promised to throw your way. Of-course they promised to steal from those, who still produce and to subsidise those, that you are supposedly interested in helping, but of course as per usual, these motions lead to the exact opposite outcomes.
Your freedom to move... on the property of others.
- wrong. I was born in the USSR, I am talking about freedom to move without government impeding on it, which is what we had - government impeding on our ability to move as free people, which we were not.
As to property of others, I am against all public property and so AFAIC all roads should be private and it is between individuals to come and various road providers to come to agreement as to how the roads can be used and it has nothing to do with:
to be secured for you by others (yet without cost)
which only has meaning by dint of the power of the collective to enforce the contract.
- wrong. Freedom to contract means without government interjecting into the terms of contract and setting rules as to how contracts are written and enforced.
you were free to own yourself and your property... unless I understand you to be objecting to eminent domain
sure, eminent domain is a huge problem, but you are still wrong, people are not free to own themselves and property as long as governments can collect income taxes and declare what money is and inflate money supply by printing fiat.
roads, railroads, etc. that the nasty collective forced upon your noble and downtrodden individuals.
- all roads and railroads should be private, as they used to be as well.
Kooks here are the likes of you, not just kooks, socialist/fascist ideologues.
Nonsense, a free society is free from government oppression, which creates the instability in the economy, the inflation (money printing) that keeps politicians afloat, the business regulations and income taxes that destroy productivity and promote theft and murder (and obviously higher prices).
http://eprof.com/
Free market capitalism produces outcomes that are affordable by most productive people and push prices down specifically to gain more market share and to make more money in the process, which is the ultimate moral good: making money by giving the people the choice of giving you their money for the product that they want and reward you for.
The only entities that keep pushing prices up are the governments, who want to bail out the politicians by constantly pushing for more and more inflation (money printing) to give them the free out of jail card to promise shit to the masses of idiots, who want free shit that they do not personally produce and pay for (at least not directly as they understand it).
Your double speak is powerless to hide the reality, there are no rights that are only ensured by denying rights of other people and that is exactly what you have to do to provide your 'civil entitlements', not rights.
A civil entitlement system exists, unfortunately, you are correct. A civil right system does not exist, anything that has to call itself a 'civil right' is based on discrimination, theft and use of force of government and its weapons to steal rights/liberty/property of people to provide the entitlements. The societies that create such is systems are sick, I give you that, most societies are sick. Societies that are based on denial of rights, denial of equal rights of people under law, based on theft and threat of government violence are sick societies.
We have what we have, all we can do is understand what exactly is going on and help these societies to commit suicide, a collapse, which is inevitable and desirable. I would rather have war and destruction than these so called 'civilised societies' that destroy the individual by promising to the majority to steal and redistribute. These societies do not deserve the light of day and they will collapse under that weight and total lack of morality, the morality that matters - morality of respect of the freedom of the individual being more important than any group any collective. Freedom first of all means protection of the individual against the destructive power of the collective, freedom to own and operate his/her own self and his/her property, freedom of movement and freedom of contract.
Sick, paternalistic societies will end themselves so that eventually freer societies can emerge, too bad we are living here today before that happened.
Wrong, poor people could afford education out of pocket, people could work for a summer to pay for the education that they could actually use in the real world. A wealthy society allows parents to pay for their children's education out of pocket specifically because it is a wealthy, productive (producing) society. You are a troglodyte, stuck in a box with no lights that can't even imagine that beyond the box there is an actual world.
The whackjob here is you, insisting that some people have to be enslaved by the system to provide some other people with a good and a service just because you want to call that particular good/service a 'right'. A right cannot be given, a right is protection against government abuse, it is absence of government abuse and equality under law. People cannot be equal under law if they are forced to provide a good/service to anybody under the guise of 'right'. At best you are confused and cannot see the difference between a right and an entitlement, at worst you are a blood thirsty socialist/fascist monster that will justify any violation of freedom and life as long as it aligns with your ideology of theft and dictatorship.
Correct. Fix the public schools by shutting them the fuck down, stopping the theft of money from the people that they could otherwise channel their resources to where the market needs those resources to go at the time, so it wouldn't be a situation where some stupendous central authority needs to wake up to the realities of the market but instead people would be solving their own problems and offering those solutions at competitive prices. Education systems are not supposed to be something static, they have to change with times to provide the economy / society what it needs and individuals within the economy acting out of their own self interest try to figure out what are the best products / services that the rest of the market participants would prefer at any time and the competition (the invisible hand) creates the necessary pressure and pushes people in the direction that helps others rather than impeding them.
Please tell me what the fuck is wrong with you? A guy works in a company in India, he is making a market set wage there, obviously he is not forced to work in the company, he is making the best money he can in his country in that company, otherwise he'd be working somewhere else in his country.
He comes to the USA to do some installation work of the product that was developed by his team in his country. How is this at all a sane idea that he now needs to be paid something entirely different based on the country where he is doing installation rather than what his actual salary is back in the country where he was hired and where he has his actual job?
Sarcastic? What is wrong with you?